[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3871-3877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 LIBYA

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Lieberman, and 
I are preparing to submit a resolution on the situation in Libya.
  Mr. President, is it allowed to send to the desk a resolution even 
though we are in morning business and its consideration be delayed 
until the appropriate time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will then be 
received and appropriately referred.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the wording of the resolution is a sense 
of the Senate. It is pretty simple and straightforward. It calls for a 
recognition of the provisional revolutionary government in Libya, and 
it calls for placing as rapidly as possible a no-fly zone over Libya. 
It has some other language associated with it, which I would go into 
later on. But the fact is, what it does is urge the President of the 
United States to take long-overdue action to prevent the massacres that 
are taking place in Libya as we speak. At this moment, opponents of 
Colonel Qadhafi and his supporters are fighting for their very 
survival.
  The demands of the Libyan people began much like those of their 
neighbors in North Africa and the Middle East--for the protection of 
their universal rights, for greater political freedom and 
representative government, for justice and opportunity. But the 
response of Qadhafi and those still loyal to him stands in stark 
contrast to the inspiring events of what some are calling the Arab 
spring. Qadhafi has unleashed a merciless campaign of violence against 
the Libyan people, including civilian noncombatants, using every tool 
at his disposal, from artillery barrages, to airstrikes, to the 
employment of foreign mercenaries. As President Bill Clinton correctly 
stated last week, ``It is not a fair fight.''
  It is not a fair fight, and now the hour is growing dark. Over the 
past week, the momentum has increasingly shifted away from the 
opposition and toward Qadhafi--showing once again what a lot of us 
understand about warfare: that a smaller well-trained, well-equipped 
force can usually prevail over a larger less-trained and less-equipped 
force.
  One by one, towns that had been liberated by the opposition are now 
falling to Qadhafi's forces. We are only now beginning to learn the 
savage cost of those losses, especially on the civilian population--the 
women, children, and elderly who could neither fight nor flee Qadhafi's 
rampage and, of course, those brave Libyan rebels, or the many 
suspected of aiding their cause, who face certain death or perhaps a 
fate worse than death. We are horrified by what we have learned 
already, but what we have yet to learn and what we could still witness 
if Qadhafi's forces are allowed to finish this unfair fight will shock 
and offend the conscience of the entire world.
  Last week, in a hearing in the Committee on Armed Services, the 
Director of National Intelligence said that absent outside assistance 
to the opposition, ``I think over the long term that the [Qadhafi] 
regime will prevail.'' And yet it is the policy of the United States, 
as stated by the President, that ``Qaddafi must step down from power 
and leave.'' That is the right policy, but it is increasingly at odds 
now with the facts on the ground.
  So we face a stark choice: either the President and the United States 
take

[[Page 3872]]

 greater action to achieve the objectives he has laid out or we allow 
events to play out as they are, meaning that Qadhafi reclaims control 
of their country.
  The resolution Senator Lieberman and I are submitting calls on the 
President to take a number of steps immediately to reverse this 
impending disaster.
  First, the President should recognize Libya's Transitional National 
Council, which is based in Benghazi but representative of communities 
across the country as the sole legitimate governing authority of 
Libya--just as the government of France has done. President Sarkozy and 
the French have recognized the sole legitimate government in Libya as 
the provisional government which is based in Benghazi.
  Some continue to say we do not know who the opposition is and, thus, 
we cannot assist them. That is ridiculous. They have been organized for 
weeks. Their senior leaders consist of longstanding critics of Qadhafi 
as well as officials who recently broke with his regime. They even have 
a Web site. And they are asking--they are pleading; they are pleading--
for international support.
  Qadhafi has forfeited the right to power through his vicious actions. 
We must recognize the opposition government.
  Second, the President should take immediate steps to implement a no-
fly zone in Libya with international support. Not only has the Libyan 
opposition government called for this, the Gulf Cooperation Council has 
called for a no-fly zone. The head of the Organization of the Islamic 
Conference has called for a no-fly zone. On Saturday, the Arab League 
called for a no-fly zone. The French and British Governments have 
voiced their support and have drafted a U.N. Security Council 
resolution to implement a no-fly zone. It is long past time for the 
President of the United States to answer these calls for international 
leadership. The United States of America must lead.
  A no-fly zone was never going to be the decisive action that tipped 
the balance against Qadhafi, even when Senator Lieberman and I called 
for it nearly 3 weeks ago, but it remains the case that a no-fly zone 
would take one of Qadhafi's most lethal tools off the table and thereby 
boost the confidence of Libya's opposition. It is Libyans themselves 
who want to do the fighting against Qadhafi, but they want it to be a 
fair fight, and so should we.
  Finally, the President should develop and implement a comprehensive 
strategy to accomplish the stated U.S. objective of Qadhafi leaving 
power. Beyond a no-fly zone and beyond those actions such as sanctions 
and humanitarian assistance that we are already taking, there are many 
actions we could consider, from sharing intelligence on Qadhafi's 
forces with the opposition, to providing them with support for command 
and control, to technical assistance, and even forms of security 
assistance if they request it--we could jam Qadhafi's communications 
and his television--and if we can provide it in a responsible way.
  Our window of opportunity to support the Libyan people is closing 
quickly, and this country has a choice to make. Are we going to take 
action to support the people of Libya in their fight for freedom or are 
we going to stand by doing more than nothing but less than enough to 
achieve our stated goal of Qadhafi leaving power?
  We all say we support the universal rights of the Arabs and Muslims 
in countries across the Middle East and North Africa who are inspiring 
us all in their quest for greater freedom, opportunity, and justice. 
But Libya is the real test. It is the test of whether we will provide 
our support not just when it is easy but when it is difficult, when it 
requires more of us than just speeches and expressions of solidarity. 
If Qadhafi is allowed to prevail in Libya and crush his opponents, it 
will send a signal throughout the region that force is the way to 
respond to peaceful demands for a better life, and it will cause all of 
our expressions of support for the universal rights of all people to 
ring far more hollow.
  Before I yield to my friend from Connecticut, I would like to point 
out that now we have former President Clinton, we have the Arab League, 
we have the French, the British, other nations throughout the world, 
and organizations in the region and without that are saying--crying 
out--that we need to help these people. And when President Obama says 
the noose is tightening around Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi, in fact, it 
is tightening around the Libyan rebels. And the way he is doing it and 
what he is doing to his own people are crimes against humanity.
  It is time we stood up. It is time we read from the New York Times 
this morning an article by Anne-Marie Slaughter entitled ``Fiddling 
While Libya Burns.'' It is time we read again, from Saturday, the Wall 
Street Journal's lead editorial entitled ``The Obama Doctrine, Libya is 
what a world without U.S. leadership looks like.''

       ``This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the 
     world--to work through multilateral organizations and 
     bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are 
     taking are amplified.''

  That was by National Security Council spokesman Ben Rhodes, as quoted 
in the Washington Post.

       ``They bombed us with tanks, airplanes, missiles coming 
     from every direction. . . . We need international support, at 
     least a no-fly zone. Why is the world not supporting us?''

  That is from Libyan rebel Mahmoud Abdel Hamid, on March 10, as quoted 
in the Wall Street Journal.
  These people are crying out for help. They are fighting for freedom. 
They are fighting an unequal situation on the battlefield. The least we 
can do--the very least we can do--is recognize them in their struggle 
for freedom and give them some assistance; otherwise, as the 
President's National Security Adviser stated on Friday: Qadhafi will 
prevail. That will send a signal throughout the world that we will have 
Tiananmen Squares in this world, not Tahrir Squares.
  I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Arizona. It is my honor to join with him in submitting this resolution. 
I hope in time that we will gather the support of Members on both sides 
of the political aisle and that we will make a statement, an urgent 
statement, that the Members of the U.S. Senate are ready, across party 
lines, to take a stand because we understand we are at a turning point 
in history and we cannot stand back and hope it goes in the right 
direction. In fact, today, as we watch events unfolding in Libya, I 
think we have reason to believe it is going in exactly the wrong 
direction.
  Let me read the first two paragraphs of this resolution Senator 
McCain and I are submitting because I think it sets what is happening 
in Libya in a context and also explains why we think America has a 
national interest in how the conflict in Libya ends.
  The first paragraph of the resolution we are submitting reads:

       Whereas peaceful demonstrations, inspired by similar 
     peaceful demonstrations in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in 
     the Middle East, began in Libya with calls for greater 
     political reform, opportunity, justice and the rule of law 
     and quickly spread to cities around the country.

  The second paragraph:

       Whereas Muammar Qaddafi, his sons, and forces loyal to them 
     have responded to the peaceful demonstrations by authorizing 
     and initiating violence against civilian non-combatants in 
     Libya, including the use of airpower, foreign mercenaries, 
     helicopters, mortar and artillery fire, naval assets, snipers 
     and soldiers.

  I read those two paragraphs because they set exactly in context what 
is happening in Libya. The fact is that Libya is occurring in the 
context of these extraordinary, peaceful, democratic uprisings in 
Tunisia and Egypt that have been described--and I think correctly--as 
the Arab spring.
  For too long, we accepted an argument that there were only two 
choices for the United States and most of the rest of the world in the 
Arab world. There was a choice between secular dictatorships that were 
cordial to us on one side and on the other side radical Islamist 
regimes that despised us and were threatening to us. We made our

[[Page 3873]]

peace with those secular dictatorships, but it was inherently 
uncomfortable and inconsistent with our basic democratic values going 
back to the Declaration of Independence.
  Beginning in Tunisia and spreading to Egypt and then to Libya and 
other countries, the Arab people themselves rose up and said: No, there 
is a third way. And the third way is democracy. We want political 
freedom. We want economic opportunity. We want into the modern world. 
We don't want extremism of any kind.
  Those revolutions, those uprisings resulted in the end of the rule of 
two longstanding rulers, Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, and 
they happened peacefully for a lot of reasons. Part of it was that 
those two leaders did not order their militaries to turn on their own 
people, and the militaries, perhaps, in those two cases would not have 
done it in any case. So that is the Arab spring.
  But now, in Libya, because Qadhafi has taken exactly the opposite 
position and turned his guns and his military power on his own people 
as they peacefully demonstrate for change, for universal human rights, 
there is a danger that what is happening in Libya is essentially a wall 
being put up which says: This peaceful democratic revolution in the 
Arab world ends here. To put it another way, the Arab spring may be 
going the way of the Prague spring of 1968 when the people of then-
Czechoslovakia rose up and Soviet tanks and armaments suppressed their 
revolution. We simply cannot let that happen.
  Senator McCain and I were in Tunisia and Egypt a couple of weeks ago, 
and one of the messages we got, particularly from the young people who 
have been at the head of this remarkable uprising in these two 
countries, was: Don't stand by. Please, America, don't stand by and let 
Qadhafi bludgeon his own people who are asking for the same rights and 
opportunity and freedoms we have been asking for. If you do, it will 
end the movement of freedom and opportunity across the Arab world. In 
some sense, the Tunisians and Egyptians said to us: It may set back our 
own cause, even though we have been successful thus far. That is why it 
has been so frustrating, really infuriating, to watch as Qadhafi has 
moved with increasing brutality and force against his own people, 
pushing his opponents back, threatening to totally suppress their 
uprising.
  I have been struck as I have watched that the world community--most 
of it--is spending so much time discussing and debating, and as the 
world discusses and debates what to do in Libya, Libya descends back 
into Qadhafi's darkness. We simply cannot let that happen.
  The Libyan people are not asking us to come in and fight for them. 
The Libyan people don't want our troops on the ground. That is not what 
this resolution would authorize. The Libyan people want us to come to 
their aid in the sense of enabling them to fight Qadhafi's forces and 
Qadhafi to carry on as freedom fighters. They want recognition as the 
established and legal authority, sovereignty for their country. They 
would like some military assistance. They would like weapons. They 
would like the kind of intelligence and electronic assistance we can 
give, and they would like us in some way--a no-fly zone or using our 
capacity to fire missiles from offshore--to protect them from what has 
turned the tide in their struggle for freedom against Qadhafi and 
Libya, which is the brutal use of Libyan air power against the Libyan 
people. If we don't do this, I fear this Arab spring will turn to 
winter--a winter of darkness and suppression--again, too quickly, and 
the world will regret it.
  People have said to Senator McCain and me: What is the American 
national interest in getting involved in Libya? Let me just give a few 
reasons I think we do have an interest.
  First, we have a clear national interest--a humanitarian interest--in 
not standing idly by and watching tens of thousands of people 
slaughtered by their own government. As I have said, if we stand by and 
do nothing, if this happens, it will be devastating to America's image 
in the Arab world and to our moral leadership throughout the world. 
Some people have argued: Why would we want to get involved in yet a 
third Arab or Muslim country, thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan before 
that. But this is more like 1990 and 1991 and the first gulf war when 
the Arab world itself was calling out to us: Please help us get Saddam 
out of Kuwait. The Arab world, as Senator McCain said, is pleading with 
us: Help stop Qadhafi from slaughtering his own people, the blood of 
our brothers and sisters in Libya.
  Second, we have a clear national interest in preventing Libya from 
becoming a failed state that al-Qaida and other Islamist groups will 
exploit, and that is precisely what will happen if this becomes a 
bloody and protracted civil war and then descends into chaos.
  Third, if Qadhafi is able to defeat this uprising, it will send a 
message, as Senator McCain has said, to every dictator in the world 
that the way to stop peaceful democratic protest is through brutal 
violence.
  Fourth, I don't mean this quote literally, but remember the old 
phrase from earlier times in history: If you go after the king, make 
sure you eliminate him. Don't leave him wounded. If Qadhafi survives 
this, he is going to cause no end of trouble for the United States and 
anyone else in the world who stood with the freedom fighters. So let's 
not think we can stand idly by and that we will not pay ourselves the 
consequences of Qadhafi surviving.
  Finally, there is a relationship between what is happening in Libya 
today and the instability it has caused throughout that region of the 
world and the skyrocketing price of gasoline at the pump that does 
concern the American people every day. In fact, with all that has been 
discussed, I think the best we can do to stabilize the price of 
gasoline in America is to stabilize Libya and to enable the Libyan 
opposition to Qadhafi to fight the fair fight they want to fight.
  So that is the intention of this resolution. It is, as the French 
would say, a ``cris de coeur.'' It is a cry from our hearts because I 
fear we have let so much time go by that it may be impossible to enable 
the freedom fighters in Libya to wage a fair fight.
  I hope their cause is not lost because it is our cause, and the least 
we can do is help them fight for that cause against the man who has 
suppressed that cause under his rule.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Connecticut if we 
couldn't review a few of the facts as they are now. Despite the fact 
that the President made a statement that I am still bewildered by--I 
believe it was Saturday or Friday when the President said the noose is 
tightening around Colonel Muammar Qadhafi.
  I think the facts on the ground indicate that with superior 
firepower, the ability to strike from the air, even if those strikes 
are not particularly effective--although, apparently, they are becoming 
more effective--and well-trained and well-equipped small forces, 
Colonel Qadhafi has been able to reverse the tide on the battlefield 
rather dramatically. All of the news reports are that the military 
situation on the ground has shifted dramatically in favor of Qadhafi's 
forces.
  General Clapper, our Director of National Intelligence, said on 
Thursday that Qadhafi is likely to win in the long term. Then, on the 
other side of the coin, the President of the United States has said 
Qadhafi must go.
  So I guess my first question to my colleague is--as the Wall Street 
Journal says, if Qadhafi survives, after Mr. Obama has told him to go, 
the blow to U.S. prestige and world order would be enormous. Dictators 
will learn that the way to keep America from acting is to keep its 
diplomats and citizens around while mowing down your opponents as the 
world debates contingency. By the time the babblers make a decision, it 
will be too late. This is a dangerous message to send at any time but 
especially with the Middle East in the throes of revolution.
  American prestige is now on the line. The battlefield situation is 
that the tide is obviously against the prodemocracy forces. Wouldn't 
the message be

[[Page 3874]]

sent to any dictator in any region of the world that rather than accept 
a situation such as happened in Egypt and Tunisia, send in the tanks, 
send in the military, slaughter people without consequence? Is that the 
lesson we would be sending, I ask my friend from Connecticut?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Arizona. I fear that is exactly the message we would be sending if the 
United States and our allies stand back and let Qadhafi, through the 
force of his arms, suppress political dissent from his own people.
  One of the inspiring qualities to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt 
was that they were peaceful. Incidentally, they were not anti-American. 
They were pro-Tunisia, pro-Egypt. The people of Tunisia and Egypt were 
pleading for a better life. So the model there and one of the most 
powerful examples of peaceful protests, which is part of American 
history, was established. It changed those two governments, Tunisia and 
Egypt.
  Now we have another model being set; that is, when your people rise 
up and peacefully protest, you don't respond, you don't negotiate, you 
don't listen to them, you don't react. You turn your firepower on them. 
You kill them wantonly, and you keep doing that until that dissent 
ends. One, in a world that is increasingly dangerous, that is a 
terrible message to send.
  Two, in a world in which--well, let's just go back a little bit to 
what were false choices in the Arab world. But in the uprisings in 
Tunisia and in Egypt, there has been expressed the strongest possible 
repudiation of al-Qaida on the one hand, and Iran on the other--that is 
the Government of Iran--both of which have followed an Islamist 
extremist ideology and used violence to achieve their ends.
  So we have the Tunisia-Egypt model of peaceful protest, democracy, 
economic opportunity, and now we have the other model of Qadhafi, which 
is violence, which will beget more violence and will cost us dearly.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, as we say in our resolution, 
President Obama has made clear that he believes Qadhafi must go. If, 
after that clear statement of American policy by our Commander in 
Chief, Qadhafi does not go, and it is seen not just in the Arab world 
but throughout the wider world that the United States was not able to 
mobilize action in the world community to make sure Qadhafi went, but 
in fact he stayed, it inevitably has an effect on the credibility of 
American leadership in the world.
  None of us want that to happen, including President Obama. So it is 
not too late. The actions we have taken, significant as they are--
sanctions on Qadhafi and some people close to him, the threat or the 
plan to refer others close to him to the International Court of 
Justice--all are important. But, unfortunately, what is more important 
now is what is happening on the ground in Libya. On the ground in 
Libya, the power of the forces of Qadhafi are winning in a fight that 
is not fair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend that I think that is a 
strong and eloquent statement. I admit to the fact that the terrible 
tragedy that has transpired in Japan is one that has riveted the 
attention of our Nation and the world. Our hearts go out to the 
Japanese people and their government in this terrible time of trial. 
There is no way we can diminish the tragedy they are experiencing. But 
it is a natural disaster that was the catalyst for that terrible 
situation.
  Meanwhile, in Libya, we have a human catalyst named Muammar Qadhafi. 
I admit and I will confess to having such a dull life that I watch a 
lot of cable television. I see expert after expert come before the 
cameras and give us reasons the United States should do nothing.
  I commend to my colleagues for reading an article in today's New York 
Times by Anne-Marie Slaughter, formerly in policy planning at the State 
Department, as I understand it, in this administration or in another. 
It does respond to what we will hear continuously. The article is 
entitled ``Fiddling While Libya Burns.''
  At the beginning, she points out that the Organization of the Islamic 
Conference, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and now the Arab League have 
all called for imposing a no-fly zone. She runs through the objections 
raised by various individuals and ``experts.'' One part is entitled 
``It's Not In Our Interest.'' One is entitled ``It Will Be 
Counterproductive.'' Another is ``It Won't Work.'' Another is ``If It 
Does Work, We Don't Know What We Will Get.'' The last is ``Let's Arm 
The Rebels Instead.''
  It addresses most of the main arguments. The only one I think should 
be added to this list is the likelihood that things are happening in 
Libya today, as we speak, that will remind us that several times in the 
last century--and even in this one--we said never again. We said never 
again after Srebenica, after Rwanda, after the Holocaust, and on 
several other occasions when nations stood by while slaughter was 
taking place.
  Is there anyone who believes that Qadhafi has not practiced in the 
past, is practicing now, and will practice in the future unspeakable 
cruelties which will be inflicted upon his people who dare to stand up 
to him? So I say to my friend: Here we are.
  We know what happened in Tripoli and what happened with air attacks 
that are taking place on defenseless individuals. We watch these brave 
young people go out there with the Kalashnikovs and other things and 
fight against the tanks and air power. As former President Clinton said 
so eloquently: It is not a fair fight. It is not a fair fight.
  I guess there will be other consultations with our allies that we 
will undertake. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is meeting 
with the leadership of the provisional government. I hope she will, as 
a result of that meeting, ask for the U.S. recognition of that 
organization as the legitimate government of the country of Libya. I 
hope all these things will happen. But, meanwhile, events are unfolding 
on the ground every second and minute, and the longer we wait to act, 
more Libyans will die. This is a preventable situation.
  The events in Japan, we can argue, were not preventable. It was an 
act of God. What is happening in Libya is an act of a brutal tyrant and 
sadist who is willing to butcher his own people. We are doing 
everything we can, and we will do everything we can to help the people 
of Japan. We ought to be doing what we can to keep the people of Libya 
from a fate that, in some cases, to some individuals, may be worse than 
death.
  I hope the majority leader will allow a vote on this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution as soon as possible. I understand there will be those 
who may like to see slightly different language. We would be glad to 
change the language somewhat, but we will not change the message. The 
message is that the United States of America--the Senate of the United 
States is standing on the side of people who are standing up for 
freedom and democracy, a universal value that we treasure. We will not 
stint in our obligations. Those who say the most powerful Nation in the 
world is incapable of helping these people by installing a no-fly zone, 
I think that is not substantiated by the facts.
  GEN Raymond Odierno said the other day that we could install a no-fly 
zone in just a few days. We could have naval power offshore that could 
enforce it in a variety of ways, from the sea as well as from the air. 
Also, it is very clear to me that if Libyan pilots are told if they fly 
they are going to die, a lot of them would not fly.
  I don't want to focus so much attention on the no-fly zone as I do on 
what is happening to the people of Libya as we speak and the 
repercussions that could take place throughout the globe. I hope we can 
vote on this sooner rather than later. I ask my friend from 
Connecticut--I believe we are nearly out of time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I just want to conclude by saying this: 
In our history in this country we have, again, been quite fortunate, 
and it may be that--as a friend of mine said to me, it is hard for 
people to imagine themselves in a position where they would

[[Page 3875]]

need to be rescued from danger, from death. Senator McCain cited some 
of the episodes, dark times in recent history, where people needed that 
help from outside--the Holocaust, Srebenica, the Balkans, Rwanda. We 
acted. This is of that same type.
  But when we think about Japan, there is this parallel to the United 
States. There have been natural disasters in this country--earthquakes, 
hurricanes. Katrina is an example. When the people of the gulf coast 
region pleaded with us, the central government, the National 
Government, the Federal Government, for help, we gave it to them. I 
will never forget what the Coast Guard did in rescuing lives on the 
gulf coast after Katrina. In some ways I think we have to perhaps see 
it as a manmade disaster, as a natural disaster. It is a basic rescue. 
In this case they are not asking us to fight their fight. They are 
asking us to leave them the weapons, the cover, so that they can fight 
their fight. That is the intention of this resolution--bottom line--to 
recognize the opposition to Qadhafi in Benghazi as the government and 
legitimate suffering government of Libya, and then work with our allies 
in the world community, including not only our NATO allies but in the 
Arab League and the Gulf Council to protect the Libyan people from 
Qadhafi's air force.
  I join with Senator McCain in saying that I hope Senators Reid and 
McConnell can agree on a way to bring forth this resolution quickly. 
Every moment that passes without us helping the Libyan opposition to 
make it a fair fight is a moment in which darkness descends over Libya.
  Again, Senator McCain said we are willing to discuss changes to the 
resolution because we would like this to be a resolution that has the 
broadest possible bipartisan support in the Senate.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall 
Street Journal editorial entitled ``The Obama Doctrine,'' the New York 
Times article, ``Fiddling While Libya Burns,'' and, from the Daily 
Beast, an interview with the Libyan resistance leader, entitled ``Rebel 
Leader: Give Us A Chance,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 13, 2011]

                       Fiddling While Libya Burns

                       (By Anne-Marie Slaughter)

       President Obama says the noose is tightening around Col. 
     Muammar el-Qaddafi. In fact, it is tightening around the 
     Libyan rebels, as Colonel Qaddafi makes the most of the 
     world's dithering and steadily retakes rebel-held towns. The 
     United States and Europe are temporizing on a no-flight zone 
     while the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Gulf 
     Cooperation Council and now the Arab League have all called 
     on the United Nations Security Council to authorize one. 
     Opponents of a no-flight zone have put forth five main 
     arguments, none of which, on close examination, hold up.


                        it's not in our interest

       Gen. Wesley K. Clark argues that ``Libya doesn't sell much 
     oil to the United States'' and that while Americans ``want to 
     support democratic movements in the region,'' we are already 
     doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Framing this issue in 
     terms of oil is exactly what Arab populations and indeed much 
     of the world expect, which is why they are so cynical about 
     our professions of support for democracy and human rights. 
     Now we have a chance to support a real new beginning in the 
     Muslim world--a new beginning of accountable governments that 
     can provide services and opportunities for their citizens in 
     ways that could dramatically decrease support for terrorist 
     groups and violent extremism. It's hard to imagine something 
     more in our strategic interest.


                      IT WILL BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

       Many thoughtful commentators, including Al Jazeera's 
     director general, Wadah Khanfar, argue that what is most 
     important about the Arab spring is that it is coming from 
     Arabs themselves. From this perspective, Western military 
     intervention will play right into Colonel Qaddafi's hands, 
     allowing him to broadcast pictures of Western bombs falling 
     on Arab civilians. But these arguments, while important, must 
     be weighed against the appeals of Libyan opposition fighters 
     for international help, and now, astonishingly, against 
     support for a no-flight zone by some of the same governments 
     that have kept their populations quiescent by holding up the 
     specter of foreign intervention. Assuming that a no-flight 
     zone can be imposed by an international coalition that 
     includes Arab states, we have an opportunity to establish a 
     new narrative of Western support for Arab democrats.


                             IT WON'T WORK

       The United States ambassador to NATO, Ivo H. Daalder, 
     argues that stopping Colonel Qaddafi's air force will not be 
     decisive; he will continue to inflict damage with tanks and 
     helicopters, bombing oil refineries and depots on his way to 
     retaking key towns. But the potential effect of a no-flight 
     zone must also be assessed in terms of Colonel Qaddafi's own 
     calculations about his future. Richard Downie of the Center 
     for Strategic and International Studies argues that although 
     Colonel Qaddafi cultivates a mad-dictator image, he has been 
     a canny survivor and political manipulator for 40 years. He 
     is aware of debates with regard to a no-flight zone and is 
     timing his military campaign accordingly; he is also capable 
     of using his air force just enough to gain strategic 
     advantage, but not enough to trigger a no-flight zone. If the 
     international community lines up against him and is willing 
     to crater his runways and take out his antiaircraft weapons, 
     he might well renew his offer of a negotiated departure.


            IF IT DOES WORK, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WILL GET

       Revolutions are almost always followed by internal 
     divisions among the revolutionaries. We should not expect a 
     rosy, Jeffersonian Libya. But the choice is between 
     uncertainty and the certainty that if Colonel Qaddafi wins, 
     regimes across the region will conclude that force is the way 
     to answer protests. And when Colonel Qaddafi massacres the 
     opposition, young protesters across the Middle East will 
     conclude that when we were asked to support their cause with 
     more than words, we blinked. Americans in turn will read the 
     words of Mr. Obama's June 2009 speech in Cairo, with its 
     lofty promises to stand for universal human rights, and 
     cringe.


                      LET'S ARM THE REBELS INSTEAD

       Some commentators who agree with the analysis above say we 
     could better accomplish our goals by providing intelligence 
     and arms to the opposition. That would, of course, be much 
     easier for us. It undoubtedly appeals to Mr. Obama as a neat 
     compromise between the desire to help the protesters and the 
     desire not to overrule his defense secretary's reluctance to 
     participate in a no-flight zone. However, we would be 
     providing arms not to a disciplined military, but to ragged 
     groups of brave volunteers who barely know how to use the 
     weapons they have. They need action that will change the 
     situation on the ground for Colonel Qaddafi, as well as his 
     calculations. Moreover, by the time arms and intelligence 
     could take effect, it is quite likely that Colonel Qaddafi 
     will have retaken or at least besieged Benghazi, the 
     opposition stronghold.
       The United States should immediately ask the Security 
     Council to authorize a no-flight zone and make clear to 
     Russia and China that if they block the resolution, the blood 
     of the Libyan opposition will be on their hands. We should 
     push them at least to abstain, and bring the issue to a vote 
     as soon as possible. If we get a resolution, we should work 
     with the Arab League to assemble an international coalition 
     to impose the no-flight zone. If the Security Council fails 
     to act, then we should recognize the opposition Libyan 
     National Council as the legitimate government, as France has 
     done, and work with the Arab League to give the council any 
     assistance it requests.
       Any use of force must be carefully and fully debated, but 
     that debate has now been had. It's been raging for a week, 
     during which almost every Arab country has come on board 
     calling for a no-flight zone and Colonel Qaddafi continues to 
     gain ground. It is time to act.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 12, 2011]

                           The Obama Doctrine

       Libya is what a world without U.S. leadership looks like.
       ``This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the 
     world--to work through multilateral organizations and 
     bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are 
     taking are amplified.''
       --White House National Security Council spokesman Ben 
     Rhodes, March 10, 2011, as quoted in the Washington Post
       ``They bombed us with tanks, airplanes, missiles coming 
     from every direction. . . . We need international support, at 
     least a no-fly zone. Why is the world not supporting us?''
       --Libyan rebel Mahmoud Abdel Hamid, March 10, 2011, as 
     quoted in The Wall Street Journal
       * * *
       Whatever else one might say about President Obama's Libya 
     policy, it has succeeded brilliantly in achieving its oft-
     stated goal of not leading the world. No one can any longer 
     doubt the U.S. determination not to act before the Italians 
     do, or until the Saudis approve, or without a U.N. 
     resolution. This White House is forthright for followership.
       That message also couldn't be clearer to Moammar Gadhafi 
     and his sons, who are busy bombing and killing their way to 
     victory against the Libyan opposition. As the U.S. defers to 
     the world, the world can't decide what to do, and the vacuum 
     is filled by

[[Page 3876]]

     a dictator and his hard men who have concluded that no one 
     will stop them. ``Hear it now. I have only two words for our 
     brothers and sisters in the east: We're coming,'' said 
     Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam, on Thursday.
       Three weeks into the Libyan uprising, here are some of the 
     live action highlights from what Mr. Obama likes to call 
     ``the international community'':
       The United Nations Security Council has imposed an arms 
     embargo, but with enough ambiguity that no one knows whether 
     it applies only to Gadhafi or also to the opposition. Even 
     the U.S. State Department and White House don't agree.
       The U.N. has referred events to the International Criminal 
     Court for a war crimes investigation. Mr. Obama said 
     yesterday this sent a message to Gadhafi that ``the world is 
     watching,'' as if Gadhafi didn't know. But it also sends a 
     message that leaving Libya without bloodshed is not an 
     option, because he and his sons will still be pursued for war 
     crimes. Had Reagan pursued this strategy in the Philippines, 
     Marcos might never have gone into exile.
       France has recognized the opposition National Council in 
     Benghazi, though the U.S. is only now sending envoys to meet 
     with the opposition for the first time. Dozens of Western 
     reporters can get rebel leaders on the phone, an opposition 
     delegation has visited French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 
     Paris, but the U.S. is still trying to figure out who these 
     people are. The American envoys better hurry because the 
     rebels may soon be dead.
       The French want a no-fly zone, but the Italians and Germans 
     object. NATO is having ``a series of conversations about a 
     wide range of options,'' as President Obama put it yesterday, 
     but NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen emerged from 
     a meeting of defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday saying 
     that ``We considered . . . initial options regarding a 
     possible no-fly zone in case NATO were to receive a clear 
     U.N. mandate'' (our emphasis). The latter isn't likely 
     because both China and Russia object, but no doubt NATO will 
     keep conversing about the ``range of options'' next week.
       Even as opposition leaders were asking for help, U.S. 
     Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the 
     world on Thursday that Gadhafi is likely to win in the long-
     term. The Administration scrambled to say this was merely a 
     factual judgment about the balance of military power, but the 
     message couldn't be clearer to any of Gadhafi's generals who 
     might consider defecting: Do so at your peril because you 
     will join the losing side.
       We could go on, but you get the idea. When the U.S. fails 
     to lead, the world reverts to its default mode as a 
     diplomatic Tower of Babel. Everyone discusses ``options'' and 
     ``contingencies'' but no one has the will to act, while the 
     predators march.
       This was true in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s until the 
     U.S. shamed Europe and NATO into using force with or without 
     a U.N. resolution. And it has been true in every case in 
     which the world finally resisted tyrants or terrorists, from 
     the Gulf War to Afghanistan to Iraq. When the U.S. chooses to 
     act like everyone else, the result is Rwanda, Darfur and now 
     Libya.
       * * *
       One difference in Libya is that the damage from a Gadhafi 
     victory would not merely be humanitarian, though that would 
     be awful enough. The only way Gadhafi can subdue Benghazi and 
     the east now is with a door-to-door purge and systematic 
     murder. The flow of refugees heading for Southern Europe 
     would also not be small.
       If Gadhafi survives after Mr. Obama has told him to go, the 
     blow to U.S. prestige and world order would be enormous. 
     Dictators will learn that the way to keep America from acting 
     is to keep its diplomats and citizens around, while mowing 
     down your opponents as the world debates contingencies. By 
     the time the Babelers make a decision, it will be too late. 
     This is a dangerous message to send at any time, but 
     especially with a Middle East in the throes of revolution.
       There is still time for Mr. Obama to salvage his Libya 
     policy, though the costs of doing so are rising every day. 
     Libya today is what a world without U.S. leadership looks 
     like.
                                  ____


                [From the DailyBeast.com, Mar. 14, 2011]

                     Rebel Leader: Give Us a Chance

       With the Libyan resistance in retreat, opposition leader 
     Mustafa Abdul Jalil tells The Daily Beast's Fadel Lamen that 
     his side needs a no-fly zone and a naval blockade to create a 
     fair fight.
       Muammar Gaddafi gave an official face to his diffused 
     opposition on Thursday by placing a $400,000 bounty on the 
     head of Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi's former justice 
     minister who has now emerged as leader of Libyan National 
     Transitional Council. And ever since, the dictator's forces 
     have seemingly been trying to collect, overtaking city after 
     city in the past few days, putting the rebels in full 
     retreat.
       The resistance's only hope seems to be some kind of 
     intervention--most critically a no-fly zone, which the Arab 
     League endorsed Saturday. That issue is expected to be taken 
     up at the United Nations imminently, and Hillary Clinton is 
     also flying east this week to meet with Jalil and other rebel 
     leaders.
       With that as a backdrop, The Daily Beast secured an 
     exclusive interview with Jalil this weekend. He thanked the 
     Arab League for their vote, terming it ``a first and 
     important step and a basis for an international decision.'' 
     Regarding Gaddafi's issuance of the $400,000 bounty against 
     him (in doing so, the dictator labeled him an agent of the 
     Italians, the British, and Libya's deposed royal family), 
     Jalil refused to return the favor, saying only that ``he has 
     no place in Libya anymore, if he leaves now we will not 
     pursue him . . . the council and the Libyan people have no 
     choice but to fight Gaddafi till the end.''
       Jalil also touched base on the battlefield map, the makeup 
     of the opposition, and the role of al Qaeda:
       We have heard conflicting messages about international 
     intervention, and whether the Libyan rebels want outside help 
     or not. What is it that you want from the rest of the world?
       We want a no-fly zone, and a naval blockade. Gaddafi has 
     been using his air force and navy to destroy the country and 
     all the cities. All we want is to have the international 
     community level the playing field. We don't want boots on the 
     ground. We can fight to liberate our own country with our own 
     blood and that will be our honor.
       We need the international community to recognize our 
     council as the sole representative of the Libyan people. No 
     Libyan so far disputed the legitimacy of the council except 
     Gaddafi and whatever is left of this regime.
       We need humanitarian help, like food and medicine. The lack 
     of international decisiveness is sending Gaddafi and his gang 
     the wrong message, it emboldened him and makes him feel free 
     to commit more war crimes against the Libyan people.
       We expect tough and hard days as the world saw what Gaddafi 
     did in Zawiya and how he bombed the oil installations in Ras 
     Lanouf. Gaddafi will use anything to stay in power and the 
     Libyan people made the decision that he must go and genocide 
     will be committed if the world community doesn't get its act 
     together and help us.
       Gaddafi's forces are clearly on the offensive, with the 
     rebels in retreat. How do you evaluate the military situation 
     right now?
       What we see is not a war between two armies, but 
     revolutionaries trying to free their country. They started 
     peacefully but were attacked with violence and bullets, 
     antiaircraft machine-guns, and rockets and of course 
     mercenaries. They are defending themselves and trying to free 
     the rest of the country that is held hostage under Gaddafi.
       The balance of power in the battlefield is not equal, but 
     the sheer will of the Libyan people to rid the country of 
     Gaddafi's regime, which like a cancer, requires sacrifice and 
     blood like any other major surgery. We will prevail.
       What about al Qaeda in Libya? Gaddafi blames the uprising 
     on al Qaeda and there were several reports mentioning some 
     kind of al Qaeda presence in Libya.
       There is no al Qaeda in Libya. Gaddafi is using this as a 
     scare tactic to create fear and distrust between us the 
     international community, but the world learned a long time 
     ago not to trust or believe Gaddafi. There is no place for al 
     Qaeda in Libya, now or in the future. The Libyan people are 
     moderate Muslims and do not subscribe to these extremist 
     ideologies. Libya is and will be a moderate Muslim country 
     where democracy and rule of law will be supreme.
       The Libyan people suffered so much for over 41 years from 
     Gaddafi's extremist ideology and will not replace it with 
     anything but democracy and the rule of law. Libya is part of 
     the Mediterranean basin and has a rich history and will 
     always be a source of moderation and stability. We will 
     respect all international laws and cooperate with the world 
     community and bring the respect and trust that Libya enjoyed 
     with the rest of the world before Gaddafi's 41 years of 
     darkness.
       There have been many reports in the Western press about the 
     lack of a central opposition. How did you come up with the 
     council and does it represent the Libyan people?
       The council derives its legitimacy from the local councils 
     that were organized by the local revolutionaries in every 
     village and city, political councils organized to administer 
     the local people's affairs like providing services, food, law 
     and order.
       Each locality nominated representatives to be members in 
     the National Transitional Council, according to their 
     population ratio of the total Libyan population. The main 
     role of the council is to represent the interest of the 
     Libyan people locally and internationally. Members of the 
     council were chosen with no regard to the political views or 
     leaning.
       How long will this council last?
       The role will end with the end of Gaddafi's regime. A 
     transitional government will be formed around the members of 
     the crisis team, of whom we named only two of its members: 
     Ambassdor Ali Issawi and Omar al-Hariri, head of the military 
     affairs. The council withheld names of members in other 
     cities like Zawiya, Nalot, Musrata, Zentan, Zawara, Tripoli, 
     Jado.
       Given the unwieldly nature of such an organization, what's 
     your decision-making mechanism?
       We use wide consultations within and outside the council, 
     we debate and discuss and

[[Page 3877]]

     try to reach consciences as we keep our goals. We don't 
     suffer from any real disagreements or conflict within the 
     council. We have developed several committees and teams to 
     deal with legal, political, social, humanitarian, defense, 
     oil, economy that we hope to become the seeds for the 
     transitional government.
       Should you prevail, what's your vision of the new Libya?
       We are striving for a new democratic, civil Libya, led by 
     democratic and civil government that focuses on economic 
     development, building civil society and civil institutions 
     and a multi-party system. A Libya that respects all 
     international agreements, is good to its neighbors, stands 
     against terrorism, with respect for all religions and 
     ethnicities.
       How would you the transition to a democratic Libya?
       We will be seeking a smooth peaceful transition, with a 
     drafting of a new constitution that will lead the country to 
     a free and fair legislative and parliamentarian elections as 
     well as presidential election. No member of the transitional 
     council will have the right to run for any of these 
     elections. There will be peaceful conference of governance 
     according to elections, under the observation of the 
     international organizations.

                          ____________________